The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
My two cents.
Took my eldest to see The Hobbit tonight. It was very very good. I had read some reviews and was kind of looking to not enjoy it as much as I did. I didn't take my little one to this one tonight, Momma wasn't feeling well and he hadn't had a nap, so we'll let him catch it on DVD.
First, this is NOT Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is a children's book, whereas the LOTR Trilogy certainly is not. That said, Peter Jackson took a lot of this new series from the Appendices, written to add to the LOTR world and background story. The movie isn't a children's movie by any means but there is a slightly different tone than the LOTR, especially early. If you had to compare the first of the Hobbit movies to any of the original LOTR movies, it would be the first one / The Fellowship of the Ring. Most alike in tone and story line.
Second, this movie is the first major motion picture filmed at 48 frames per second vs the traditional 24 frames per second. What this accomplishes is the "blur" we are used to seeing in the fast action sequences in movies is completely gone. The action sequences are brilliant and a treat to watch. The only con I saw, was in some of the more static scenes, those without much movement at all. It was subtle but I actually had a bit of trouble focusing on the details in those slower scenes. The first few sequences especially were troublesome. I'm not sure if sitting farther back would have helped but as the movie progressed I seemed to have adjusted to it and had no troubles after that. Peter Jackson outdid himself, the movie is a visual masterpiece. Makes me want to go to "Middle Earth, ie New Zealand" really really bad! :-)
Third, as for the movie, it is certainly worth the price of admission. I don't go out of my way to see a lot of movies at the theater but this is a must see if you are a fan of such movies. I don't know if I'd take young children but my four year old handles the original three with no trouble so he could have seen this one. The first time we watched one of the LOTR movies at home, I was worried he'd be scared (he was three then). As soon as Gollum came on, he started giggling and for some reason cracks up every time he is on screen. A few of this movies scenes were intense but nothing overly bloody. As in the first series, a lot of the action is played with a bit of comic relief.
Fourth, Gandalf is Gandalf, played by Ian McKellan. Good as always. Young Bilbo is played by Martin Freeman (of the BBC's Sherlock series) and is very good. Richard Armitage playes Thorin Oakenshield (heir to the Dwarf kingdom's throne) and is outstanding. Really does a great job. Many of the supporting characters are back with the original actors, even if just for a cameo, Older Bilbo, Frodo, Lord Elron, Lady Galadriel, Saruman, and of course Gollum. A lot of new characters, mostly dwarves but there were so many of them, it was a bit hard to follow their names. A few were memorable, some were forgettable.
Fifth, this first movie is pretty true to the original book with a few key elements apparently added from the Appendices. I've read the book, not the Appendices, so it is hard to say for sure. Most of the added sequences were merely laying ground work for the next two films, when I'm sure they will delve deeper into the Appendices. The movie goes from the assembling of the team as in the book, to the point where the Eagles rescue them from the Orcs. (Sorry, trying to avoid spoilers here). Despite most of this first movie being true to the book, it avoids some of the book's more childish elements. There were no talking animals in this movie, unlike the book. Most of the basic story line was the same but probably taken up a notch in the drama and seriousness of the scene but without losing some of the humor.
Well I've written more than I intended. I'm a fan of Tolkien and I can't wait to see the next two. :-)
I guess I gave you a $1.00 instead of two cents! ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment